868
Google admits Spotify pays no Play Store fees because of a secret deal | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
144 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Kind of weird, considering they're a major competitor, but so what? Why is this something they need to "admit"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Stuff like this will be used in the anti monopoly cases going on world wide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I'm all for reigning in monopolies, but I actually don't see how this is anticompetitive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A business paying zero fees is not anticompetitive. One specific business paying zero fees when everyone else has to and doesn’t know about it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This old saying feels more relevant than ever in this context:

    Mind your own business.

    As I see it, there can be various good reasons for striking a "better" deal with some than others, depending on who benefits from who etc. Just like how a retailer wouldn't just pay all the suppliers the same, since they're supplying different amounts of different products that don't all have the same value to the retailer nor customer.

    Let's ignore who are the parts in this specific case, but rather discuss the broader principles of free trade. Why would a business have any right to know what their competitors are paying/earning? They can definitely ask as a part of a negotiation process, but in no way can they expect to get an answer. Instead, they can decide not to do business with one who won't share this information with them. This is a good thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    They've rigged the system so that nobody can compete with them. YouTube music and Spotify pay nothing and everyone else has to pay, meaning smaller business attempting to compete is starting with a severe disadvantage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    This is not your uncle selling an old TV to your neighbour, this impacts lots of consumers and other businesses.

    As a consumer I'm a part of the business , so you are actually advocating people to be involved, even though you are contradicting your self because I don't think you understand the implications of "minding your own business".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you want to start a competitor to Spotify or Google music, you will have to pay those fees making it almost impossible for you to compete.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A company giving special access to it's competition on a platform they control is usually used as an indicator of not being anticompetitive.

    I hadn't considered it from a "collusion" angle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    it would be different if it was for all it's competition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Eh, when Microsoft was required to ask you which browser you wanted, they didn't need to offer every browser, just theirs, firefox and Chrome.

    This could definitely be collusion, but I don't think that not extending it to all competitiors is what makes it that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago*

    How? Special back door secret deals for one and only one company is the definition of anticompetitive.

    Competition is defined as more than one lol

    Edit: I'm special, I am first place! But if you knew it was 1st place of one... I sure hope you think me as noncompetitive....🤣 It's strange to me to think I'm competitive if I have no competitors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    The thing is that any other competitor music app (or other app in general) faces the monetary barrier that Spotify secretly doesn't face in order to process subscription payments through Google Play is anticompetitive.

    In this way, Google is also acting more like a market-maker than merely a competitive player or partner in a free market, where they can decide who the dominant music streamer could be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    Netflix makes heavy use of Amazon Web Services, specifically S3 Buckets. I’m sure there’s a special deal worked out with them as an anchor client.

    Malls do the same thing. While they’re not in direct competition in the same sense as Google/Spotify or Amazon/Netflix, some stores don’t even pay rent in a mall because it’s expected that they’ll drive traffic to the rest of the stores. 90% sure Victoria’s Secret, Macy’s, etc are some of these anchor stores that very often pay little or negative rent due to the sheer revenue generated by other avenues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent